If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

EXHIBIT 7 PHOTOGRAPH "A" - A SIDE VIEW OF THE BODY LATER ON THE AUTOPSY TABLE.
(How much later? Can we see the back of the photo and give credit?)

"B" AND "C" - SHOW THE HEAD OF THIS CHILD

"D" I BELIEVE THE ABDOMEN AND "E" IS THE LOWER ABDOMEN WITH THE GENITAL AREA AND THE TWO FEMURS -- TWO THIGH BONES ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

(Q: JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, ARE ORAL SWABS FROM THE MOUTH?
A: YES. (JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, the dried out mouth? The mummified mouth? The mouth that no fly would venture into? That mouth?)

Q: WERE THERE ANY SWABS THAT WERE DESCRIBED AS VAGINAL SWABS OBTAINED BY YOU FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER?
A: YES.
(How can something that's missing be swabbed? I'm not into CHILD PORN, but I sure would love to have a look at Photograph E on Exhibit 7.

...A. THESE ARE THE RIBS. (Before or after the sample was taken?)
ALL THE SKIN AND MUSCLE IS GONE OVER TOP OF THEM, SO YOU SEE THE BARE RIBS HERE. THIS IS A LOWER COSTAL MARGIN, THE UNDERSURFACE OF THE RIBS HERE, THAT'S HERE, AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS THE ABDOMEN.

"F" AND "G." - THE BACK OF THE HANDS. THE LEFT HAND ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT HAND ON THE RIGHT.
(Interesting.)

"H" AND "I" - THE PALMS OF THE HAND, THE LEFT HAND ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT HAND ON THE RIGHT.
(Interesting.)

"J" AND "K" - THE SOLE OF THE RIGHT FOOT, BECAUSE THE LEFT FOOT WASN'T PRESENT.

Comment

Q. And you were specifically requested to test certain of the clothing that had been provided, is that right?
A. I'm sorry, could you be more specific in terms of the clothing?

Q. Well, you specifically indicated in your report that the front of the v-neck swab, item no. 104, the back of the v-neck swab, item 105, the oral swabs, i think your abbreviation is the vaginal swabs and the rectal swabs, you tested all of those items is that right, sir?
A. Correct.

Q: WERE THERE ANY SWABS THAT WERE DESCRIBED AS VAGINAL SWABS OBTAINED BY YOU FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER?
A: YES.
(How can something that's missing be swabbed? I'm not into CHILD PORN, but I sure would love to have a look at Photograph E on Exhibit 7.

Comment

Q DID YOU ALSO TEST ITEM NUMBER 104 WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS A SWAB OR SWABS FROM THE FRONT NECK AREA OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?
A NO DETECTIBLE AMOUNTS OF D.N.A. WAS RECOVERED. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO GET ANY TYPE OF D.N.A. RESULTS POSSIBLE, BUT NONE WERE OBTAINED.

Q WHAT ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 105, IDENTIFIED AS SWAB OR SWABS FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM'S BACK NECK AREA?
A ALSO AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE. NO D.N.A., NO HUMAN D.N.A., WAS RECOVERED. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO GET ANY TYPES OUT OF THAT SAMPLE. NO D.N.A. TYPES WERE RECOVERED.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ITEM IDENTIFIED AS NUMBER 125. IDENTIFIED AS ORAL SWABS TAKEN FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM. DID YOU TEST THAT?
A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?
A AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DETERMINE IF SPERM CELLS WERE PRESENT IN THAT SAMPLE. THERE WERE NO SPERM CELLS THAT WERE FOUND. NO FURTHER WORK WAS PERFORMED.

Q WHAT ABOUT NUMBER 126, IDENTIFIED AS VAGINAL SWABS FROM DANIELLE?
A THAT SAMPLE WAS ALSO ANALYZED TO DETERMINE IF ANY SPERM CELLS WERE PRESENT IN THAT SAMPLE. NO SPERM CELLS WERE FOUND. AND NO FURTHER WORK WAS PERFORMED ON THAT SAMPLE.

Q ON BOTH THIS ITEM AND THE PREVIOUS ITEM WHY WAS NO FURTHER WORK PERFORMED?
A THOSE WERE REPORTED TO ME AS SWABS TAKEN FROM THE BODY OF DANIELLE VAN DAM. THEY WERE TESTED PRIMARILY FOR THE PRESENCE OF SPERM, AND ANY OTHER D.N.A. PRESENT WOULD BE ASSUMED TO BE FROM HER.
(Appeal this.)

Q LASTLY IN THIS GROUP, DID YOU TEST AN ITEM IDENTIFIED AS NUMBER 127, RECTAL SWABS FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?
A THAT SAMPLE WAS ALSO ANALYZED TO DETERMINE IF SPERM WAS PRESENT. NO SPERM WERE FOUND. AND NO FURTHER WORK WAS PERFORMED.

...Q: ALL RIGHT.

IN THIS CASE DID YOU TRY TO OBTAIN SWABS FROM DANIELLE?
A: YES, I DID. I SWABBED THE MOUTH IN OUR NORMAL FASHION. AND I DID NOT MAKE THE SLIDES. I JUST GAVE THE SWABS TO THE CRIME LAB., TO THE CRIMINALIST DULANEY, WHO WAS AT THE TIME AT THE AUTOPSY.

AND DURING THE AUTOPSY I IDENTIFIED A SECTION OF BOWEL I THOUGHT PRETTY MUCH WAS THE RECTUM. (How long you been doing this stuff buddy? Any idea what a rectum look like. I look in the mirror somtimes, do you?)
AND I SWABBED THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE LINING WAS SORT OF DETERIORATING AND SORT OF SLOUGHING OFF. I SWABBED THAT AND GAVE HER THE SWABS ALSO.

AND THEN THERE WAS A THIRD AREA, SORT OF A TUBULAR STRUCTURE IN THE PELVIS, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN THE VAGINA OR COULD HAVE BEEN THE BLADDER. (Only a person with medical knowledge could tell the difference, correct?) I WASN'T SURE. IT WAS SO DETERIORATED. BUT I SWABBED THAT ALSO EVEN THOUGH THE LINING WAS SORT OF DETERIORATING AND SLOUGHING OFF AND GAVE THOSE SWABS TO THE CRIME LAB.

Comment

Q: Did you also collect any swabs from the neck area of her body?
A: Yes, i did.

Q: For what reason?
A: Looking for possible trace evidence or blood or saliva or things that we couldn't see, biological, serological evidence.

Q: Were these swabs done similarly to the method that you would utilize or use with a bloodstain as back at the house?
A: Yes.

...Q. AND YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO TEST CERTAIN OF THE CLOTHING THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED, IS THAT RIGHT?
(FROM THE RECOVERY SCENE, CORRECT?)
A. I'M SORRY, COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF THE CLOTHING?

Q. WELL, YOU SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN YOUR REPORT THAT THE FRONT OF THE V-NECK SWAB, ITEM NO. 104, THE BACK OF THE V-NECK SWAB, ITEM 105, THE ORAL SWABS, I THINK YOUR ABBREVIATION IS THE VAGINAL SWABS AND THE RECTAL SWABS, YOU TESTED ALL OF THOSE ITEMS IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A. CORRECT.
Q: Were those swabs, first of all, where were they located and what item numbers did you give them?
A: Okay. I collected swabs from the front of the neck and the back of the neck. The swabs from the front of the neck were item number 104. And the swabs from the back of the neck were item number 105.

Comment

Q. And those swabs, did you look at them microscopically?
A. No. I transferred those over to the criminalist from the San Diego Police Department.

Q. And who was that?
A. Savage and Dulaney.

Q. In the ordinary course of business, would that be something that you, sir, as a forensic pathologist just would look at?
A. [b] We normally make one set of slides for ourselves, and then give one set of slides to the law enforcement.

Q. In this case you did not do that?
A. I did not do that.
(Of course not. Why take photos of stuff that will get you in trouble? Why follow procedures? Cover up to the max!!!)

Q. Why?
A. Because the tissue was so deteriorated we just gave them all to the police.

Q. So all the tissue was --
A. Yes.

Q. Because in your view there wasn't really anything that could -- inferences couldn't be drawn from what was there because it was too deteriorated? (Got Microscope?)
A. Yes. (Then USE it!!)

Q. You looked specifically in the area of the neck, and I note that you said that there were no traumatic injuries observed on the anterior or lateral neck; is that correct?
A. Yes.

"The first thing you're going to look at is who is sending me this letter...what is their background..is this an out right "kook," or is this someone who has the credentials who could have committed this crime," Gibson said.

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Comment

Q: HOW DO YOU CUSTOMARILY DO THAT IN SOMEONE WHO HAS RECENTLY DIED?
A: WELL, WE DO JUST A VISUAL EXAMINATION BOTH OF THE MOUTH, THE VAGINA, AND THE RECTUM, LOOKING FOR ANY TEARS OR ABRASIONS. WE HAVE A COLPOSCOPE, WHICH IS A MAGNIFYING MACHINE WITH A LIGHT ON IT, WHICH ALLOWS US TO, YOU KNOW, GET A MAGNIFIED VIEW OF THINGS.

SO THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, VERY FORCIBLE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR SOME OBJECT PLACED IN THOSE ORIFICES, THEY MAY ACTUALLY ABRADE OR LACERATE THE MUCOSA, THE LINING OF THE ORIFICE. THAT'S THE FIRST THING.
(Say that again, but a bit slower...)

AFTER WE'VE DONE THAT, WE SWAB THE ORIFICE, EITHER THE MOUTH, THE VAGINA, OR THE RECTUM, AND WE MAKE GLASS SLIDES. (But not this time.) WE SMEAR A LITTLE BIT OF THE MATERIAL ON A GLASS SLIDE. WE LOOK AT IT UNDER A MICROSCOPE, AND THEN WE TRANSFER THE SWABS TO THE CRIME LAB. IN THIS CASE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND THEY DO THEIR D.N.A. AND OTHER TESTS. AND THEY ACTUALLY LOOK FOR SPERM FROM THE SWABS AS WELL.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE LOOK AT THE SLIDE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE, SEE IF WE SEE SPERM. WE HAVE A STAIN, A RED AND GREEN STAIN, THAT WE STAIN THIS WITH. SO THE SPERM SORT OF STANDS OUT. (Anybody use that test on the stain from Item #3?)

AND WE CAN SEE WHETHER THE HEAD OF THE SPERM IS THERE OR THE SPERM HEAD AND TAIL. I LIKE TO SEE THE HEAD AND TAIL TO MAKE SURE IT IS A REAL SPERM, NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST LOOKS LIKE ONE. THAT'S WHAT WE DO IN A NORMAL CASE.
(That being said, since you didn't do what you told us you normally do, then I guess that makes this NOT a normal case, correct?)

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN THIS CASE DID YOU TRY TO OBTAIN SWABS FROM DANIELLE?
A: YES, I DID. I SWABBED THE MOUTH IN OUR NORMAL FASHION. AND I DID NOT MAKE THE SLIDES. I JUST GAVE (Gave control!) THE SWABS TO THE CRIME LAB., TO THE CRIMINALIST DULANEY, WHO WAS AT THE TIME AT THE AUTOPSY. AND DURING THE AUTOPSY I IDENTIFIED A SECTION OF BOWEL I THOUGHT PRETTY MUCH WAS THE RECTUM. AND I SWABBED THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE LINING WAS SORT OF DETERIORATING AND SORT OF SLOUGHING OFF. I SWABBED THAT AND GAVE HER THE SWABS ALSO.

AND THEN THERE WAS A THIRD AREA, SORT OF A TUBULAR STRUCTURE IN THE PELVIS, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN THE VAGINA OR COULD HAVE BEEN THE BLADDER. I WASN'T SURE. IT WAS SO DETERIORATED. BUT I SWABBED THAT ALSO EVEN THOUGH THE LINING WAS SORT OF DETERIORATING AND SLOUGHING OFF AND GAVE THOSE SWABS TO THE CRIME LAB.

Comment

Q: TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
A: WELL, IF I'M RESPONDING TO A HOMICIDE, THEN I'M WORKING WITH A HOMICIDE TEAM WHERE THERE'S A VARIETY OF DETECTIVES, PATROL PEOPLE, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER WOULD END UP THERE. IF IT'S A NON-HOMICIDE, THEN THERE'S A VARIETY OF DETECTIVE, PATROL PEOPLE, SERGEANTS, SO IT'S USUALLY NEVER JUST ME.

Q: HOW DOES THE PROCESS WORK? FIRST OF ALL, ARE YOU THE ASSIGNED EVIDENCE COLLECTOR IF YOU ARE AT THE SCENE?
A: I'M THE ASSIGNED FORENSIC SPECIALIST, SO GENERALLY I COLLECT ALL THE EVIDENCE. SOMETIMES A DETECTIVE OR A SERGEANT OR A LIEUTENANT WILL COME OR A PATROL OFFICER WILL COME BY SOMETHING, AND I'LL RECEIVE IT FROM THEM. BUT GENERALLY I COLLECT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

(So, if you receive something from somebody, YOU personally CAN NOT vouch for the integrity of the evidence, correct?)

...Q: WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE TO BE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?
A: I WAS CALLED TO A MISSING PERSON SCENE. SO WE WERE LOOKING FOR A MISSING PERSON AND ANY EVIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT MISSING PERSON THAT MIGHT HELP US FIGURE OUT WHERE THE MISSING PERSON WAS.
(If you were called out to the scene of a HOMICIDE, things like BRIGHT RED BLOOD stains in the stairwell and on the bean bag chair may be important. I'll bet after act I, scene II, take IV, the scene was declared a HOMICIDE SCENE and the blood could then be collected.

When you were looking for this missing BODY, did you turn your evidence over to robbery or HOMICIDE? Why would HOMICIDE be involved at a missing person crime scene where there was no body, but tons of blood and LIES? Criminal behavior and LIES seem to go hand in hand. Look at the LIES Westerfield told. You had the body, otherwise HOW did Melvin Kong KNOW to look for an earring back two weeks BEFORE Danielle's body was tampered with and then rediscovered? It wasn't WESTERFIELD and SDPD PROVED it wasn't!!!)

Q: WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, WERE THERE ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL?
A: YES.

Q: JUST GENERALLY WHAT TYPES OF PERSONNEL?
A: THERE WERE SERGEANTS, THERE WAS LIEUTENANTS, THERE WAS SEARCH-AND-RESCUE PEOPLE. THERE WAS PATROL OFFICERS. THERE WERE DETECTIVES. SO QUITE A BIT OF POLICE PERSONNEL.
(That's probably because the SIU had to leave and play some pool before their next assignment.)

"The first thing you're going to look at is who is sending me this letter...what is their background..is this an out right "kook," or is this someone who has the credentials who could have committed this crime," Gibson said.

http://www.kfmb.com/features/special...y.php?id=11121..."

(Are you suggesting Westerfield had help from Selby, the van Dam's and SDPD?)

Comment

Just one big mistake, just one day before David Westerfield is found guilty. It's all just ONE BIG MISTAKE, not some conspiracy theory, or GIANT coincidence, isn't it?

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Comment

(Are you suggesting Westerfield had help from Selby, the van Dam's and SDPD?)

I'm suggesting James Allen Selby deserved more than a head nod, or a hand wave, that's for sure. Pay no attention to the serial rapist behind the curtain.

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Comment

A swab TOO wet to test from a RAPE VICTIM? Who was giving orders and why? Somebody get caught with their thing in a backyard "swing set"?)

A case so HOT, too HOT someone had to change the direction of the investigation? Scene one, Swing set in the backyard. CUT!

Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

Comment

Just one big mistake, just one day before David Westerfield is found guilty. It's all just ONE BIG MISTAKE, not some conspiracy theory, or GIANT coincidence, isn't it?
(It's a big mistake that nobody wants to CORRECT or TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR. Somebody needs to start pointing fingers and see which way the other fingers begin to point.)